I thank the hon. Member for this question, but I am afraid to say that the hon. Member might have gotten the facts wrong in his question. First, the difference in life expectancy at birth between males and females, which I presume is what the hon. Member is referring to, is not 6.8 years. Second, it is not appropriate to use life expectancy at birth to calculate the actuarial reduction factor. Third, we cannot have differentiated actuarial reduction factor – one for males and one for females. Let me get the facts straight. First, with regard to life expectancy at birth, according to the latest figures from Statistics Mauritius for the year 2025, provided by the Ministry of Finance, the difference in life expectancy at birth between males and females was 7.3 years, not 6.8 years, as stated by the hon. Member. I am tabling the latest statistics provided by Statistics Mauritius and the Ministry of Finance. Second, for the purpose of pension, it is more appropriate to use expectancy at age 60 instead of life expectancy at birth. According to Statistics Mauritius, the difference in life expectancy at age 60 between males and females was 4.1 years in 2025. I am tabling the latest statistics from Statistics Mauritius provided by the Ministry of Finance. Third, in determining the actuarial reduction factor, it is a standard international practice not to differentiate between males and females. The actual reduction factor is, therefore, based on the average life expectancy at age 60 and assumption as to investment yields. This principle is already enshrined in law under the Eighth Schedule to the National Pension Funds Act, which provides for the application of a monthly actuarial reduction of 0.45%. I am informed that the commission has recalculated the actuarial reduction factor at 0.5% per month based on new demographic data available. The proposed reduced State Age Pension in the Budget is based on the same principles as the Basic Retirement Pension. It is universal, non-contributory, that is, payable to all eligible persons regardless of whether they are men or women. Moreover, although women generally live longer than men, Government does not consider it appropriate to apply different reduction rates based on gender. The reduced State Age Pension is designed to treat all eligible persons equally. So, the same reduction rates will apply. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, for the record, I was quoting from the available figures of last year. That being the case, does the hon. Minister agree then that the average life expectancy of a man is 70 years old? You can round it up here. It is 70.6. Under the State Age Pension, if he takes his pension at 60 for the amount of Rs11,589, he will earn Rs400,000 more than if he takes it at 65 at the quantum of Rs16,555. Therefore, does he not agree that all males will take their pension at 60? Is that something that we can agree on?

I have already stated the stand of the Government.

This is not what I said.

Listen to the answer!

We do not intend to differentiate between male and female on gender basis. Secondly, the issue of reduced pension age is being examined by a Cabinet Economic Committee, which has been set up by the Cabinet last Friday. It will meet under the chairmanship of the hon. Prime Minister this Wednesday to inter alia study all the adjustments, if necessary, in relation to the reduced SAP, following the decision of the Government not to go ahead with the means test of the initially proposed SAP.

May I ask the hon. Minister, secondly, with regard to women, it is the same thing. When you look at what they stand to gain over 18 years and what they stand to gain if they take it at 65 over 13 years, it is marginally different. Therefore, once we have established that, I will ask the hon. Minister, the State Age Pension as it stands, is it not the case that while a 30% increase to Rs21,500 was promised by him, it is, in fact, exactly, a 30% decrease that is being offered now under the State Age Pension of 60 years! Does he not agree on that as well?

This is a matter of opinion.

No, it is facts!

If you have any opinion, you can state it. The committee will study everything tomorrow at 2:30 p.m.

It is facts! One more question!

Question, not a statement.

My last question, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. To add insult to injury, the previous pension system was to be increased year by year. But according to that reform here, according to paragraph 29, I will quote 27.3 (e) of the Annex to the Budget, we see that whoever elects [and everybody will elect to get the pension at 60] will do so on a fixed rate basis until their death. Can you also confirm that this is the case?

The initial question was on life expectancy between males and females.

You have said it in your reply.

Okay, I have already replied to this question. To the second question, whatever adjustment between 60 and 70 will be discussed tomorrow. CHAMPIONNAT DE MAURICE DE CYCLISME – MR M.L. ACCIDENT – ROAD CYCLING RACE SAFETY